Haryana

Ambala

CC/154/2023

RAMAN KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

D.N PALI.

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	154 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	11.04.2023
Date of decision	:	16.08.2024

Raman Kumar aged about 50 years s/o Late Shri Ram Dhani Pal, R/o H.No.39, Karanpuri, Behind B.D.Flour Mills, Ambala Cantt.

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt, through its Manager.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, First Floor, P.N.B.House, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
3. Punjab National Bank, Head Office- Plot No.04, 205, Delhi Road, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri D.N. Pali, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To encash the entire amount of FDR No.01193011001926 amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-deposited on 26.08.2011 till 26.08.2016, thereafter renewed w.e.f.26.08.2016 to 26.08.2021 and further renewed from 26.08.2021 to 26.08.2026, as premature payment, alongwith uptodate interest accrued thereupon till the date of encashment/release of entire amount of FDR, to the complainant being either or Survivor having Joint Account with his deceased mother-Smt.Laj Rani in the aforesaid FD Account;
2. To pay Insurance Amount of the said FD amounting to Rs.5,00,000/ which was given by DICGC vide date of issue as 02.02.2022, to the complainant being either of the survivor;
3. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, harassment, mental torture, agony and financial loss caused to the complainant,
4. To grant interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of compensation with effect from the date of ignoring vide Letter dated 13.02.2023 till date of entire payment, to the complainant;
5. To accept the complaint with costs.
6. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant alongwith his widow mother Smt.Laj Rani were holding their joint FD Account bearing No.01193011001926 amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-, and both of them deposited the same with the OP No.1. At that time, OP No.1 assured the complainant and his mother- Smt. Laj Rani that either or survivor can withdraw the amount of FDR at any moment. The complainant and his mother initially deposited this amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on 26.08.2011 till 26.08.2016 @ 9.75 per annum. Thereafter on the inducement and assurance of the OP No.1, the complainant alongwith his mother extended the aforesaid FDR for further 05 years i.e. with effect from 26.08.2016 to 26.08.2021 @ 7.75% per annum. The aforesaid FDR was again matured and the complainant alongwith his mother Smt.Laj Rani requested the OP No.1 to encash the entire amount of FDR with uptodate interest till then; but the OP No.1 again disclosed to the complainant and his mother to further extend the FDR for further 05 years more.  OP No.1 promised the complainant and his mother that if the complainant needs encashment of FDR, they can get the same encashed and as such, only on the persistence of OP No.1, the complainant and his mother further extended the aforesaid FDR for 05 years more period i.e. with effect from 26.08.2021 to 26.08.2026 @5.75% per annum. In order to clarify the complainant and his mother, they were given insurance of Rs.5,00,000/- as each depositor by DICGC with date of issue as 02.02.2022. The complainant and his mother was disclosed by the OP No.1 that in case of sudden demise of either of the survivor of the said FDR, the either of the Survivor will be given the insurance amount and the FDR will be encashed forthwith. The complainant alongwith his mother was given receipt of further renewal of FDR by the name of Punjab National Bank with an excuse that the Oriental Bank of Commerce has been merged into Punjab National Bank. Unfortunately, the mother of the complainant, namely Smt.Laj Rani died on 15.12.2022 and accordingly, the complainant being either of the survivor of aforesaid FDR approached OP No.1 personally and requested OP No.1 to release the insurance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- besides the encashment of FDR being survivor; but  the matter was lingered on the ground that legal heir certificate is needed. Thereafter the complainant again requested OP No.1 that he is a  joint FDR account holder with his mother Smt.Laj Rani and he be released the amount of FDR and Insured amount but to no avail. Consequently a legal notice dated 06.03.2023 was also served upon the OPs in the matter but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant Raman Kumar was not joint holder in Account No. 01193011001926 as alleged by him. Smt. Laj Rani is sole account holder in Account No. 01193011001926. Raman Kumar was asked to give Legal Certificate for the payment of the FD Account No.01193011001926 because there is no nomination in the abovesaid account.  OP No.1 demanded the Legal Heir Certificate as per requirement of the bank policy in case of no nomination is registered in the account. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Sushil Kumar, Senior Manager, of the OPs-Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A, alongwith document as Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that though the complainant was a joint holder of the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) No.0654465 (under either or survivor) Annexure C-1 but after death of the either-Mrs.Lajrani,  his mother, the OPs failed to  pay the FDR amount as well as insurance amount to the complainant and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since account bearing number 01193011001926 (FDR) is not a joint account, implying that the FDR was issued solely in the name of Mrs. Lajrani, as such, no amount can be released to the complainant, unless he provides necessary documents to prove that he is the sole legal heir of the account holder of the said FDR. 
8.           In this case, the question under consideration is whether the complainant was a joint holder of the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) No.0654465, as outlined in Annexure C-1. Upon thorough examination of the FDR, which is associated with account number 01193011001926, it has been found that the FDR is exclusively in the name of Mrs. Lajrani, resident at House No.39, Karanpuri, Ambala Cantt. It has also been observed that the complainant’s name does not appear as a joint holder in any designated section or column of the said FDR. No doubt in the coloum type of deposit it is mentioned as “either or survivor”. The name of the complainant also found mentioned with a black pen below the said FDR. Merely writing of the name on the FDR does not conform to the standard practice of recording joint holders in official financial documents. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that to substantiate a claim of joint ownership, it is incumbent upon the complainant to adduce cogent evidence to establish that he was indeed a joint holder of the subject FDR. Such evidence could include an application form or any other official documentation that would affirm joint holder status.
9.           Additionally, the complainant's reliance on account details, Annexure C-2, which refers to a different account bearing no.01192191015334, where he might be a joint holder, does not impact the status of the FDR in question. The benefits or rights associated with one account cannot be applied to another account without evidence of joint holder status in the subject FDR. Therefore, the argument based on Annexure C-2 is not relevant or sufficient to support the complainant's claim regarding the FDR.
10.           It may be stated here that without evidence demonstrating that the complainant is a joint holder of the specific FDR No.0654465, his claim cannot be upheld. The complainant's assertion based on unrelated account details is inadequate to establish entitlement to benefits or rights in relation to the FDR in question.
11.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequestly, we dismiss the same, with no order as to costs. However, still in the interest of justice, we leave the complainant at liberty to provide necessary documents to the OPs and satisfy them qua legal heirs etc. to get amount under the said FDR and insurance policy. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room

  Announced:- 16.08.2024

 

	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
	Member	President